Clear Channel Communications Conspiracy Theories...

Sorry if these ideas have been posted before, but I find it interesting that the merger approval is finally happening... so close to the Clear Channel sale. I think this incredibly slow process is how the FCC has been able to help the NAB without actually denying the merger of satellite.

I also thought it was kind of funny that C3SR (aka the NAB coalition) has clear ties to another company with 3 C's in it's name. They don't even try to hide it.

With the 25 to 50 % spectrum divestiture demands, maybe that is what they were hoping the new name of the company would be:

Interesting theory. But I think that if they were seriously interested in making a grab for the lease space, they would have been more involved in the process and we would have seen a lot of filings on their behalf.

Unless they had some kind of under the table agreement with Georgetown.

The second theory was mostly meant to be tongue in cheek, but the idea that Georgetown was looking to flip the spectrum to someone else has certainly been posed more than a few times.

To think that there were under the table agreements is not too far fetched. It would have been really ridiculous for Clear Channel to directly ask for the spectrum. That is why they had so many in congress do it for them.

My understanding of the NAB is that they are basically the lobbying effort of the major broadcasters. (Excluding satellite radio). To that effect, do you think that they work on a unified front for terrestrial radio itself, or that within the NAB there is still in-fighting between the major companies, CBS, CCU, etc. I guess my question is, would the NAB work on a unified front to push for a single of their member companies to gain control on the satellite spectrum?

I'm not sure if they would push for a single entity. I suppose it would depend on how deep that companies' pockets are and how corrupt the NAB is. CBS certainly competes with Clear Channel. But I have no idea about how much they may cooperate when it is mutually beneficial to do so.

I guess I see it like a union. Depending on where the leaders come from helps determine what workers get what deals.

Or the NAB could just fight for the right for any of their "clients" to get the spectrum and then let the clients decide who gets the spectrum, or if they would split it.